It seems like all my life I have been making subtle distinctions. They have always felt HUGE to me, but subtle to others. In the 1980s, when I was a music therapist, it just didn't seem right that finely researched, psychodynamic, improvisational work with autistic kids went by the same name as generic sing-alongs on the geriatric unit. In the 1990s, when I was in substance abuse prevention, the distinction was between preventionists who focused on stopping unwanted behavior and those who focused on positive youth development.
Now it is law of attraction, a sometimes woo-woo concept that was swept into our consciousness by the marketing blockbuster, The Secret. On one side of this distinction are those who seem to make few distinctions, who talk about LOA as if we can just think a thought and, poof, the object of our desires will appear. It doesn't match our human experience, but is nonetheless held to be true. And if you don't get results, well, you probably just need their newest program to help you "get it." Interestingly enough, these are the same folks from whom I receive almost daily hard-sell marketing emails. Seems their thoughts aren't quite enough to get the job done.
Then there are the folks who don't push their message much at all. They rarely talk about manifesting mansions on the coast or Maseratis in the driveway. They focus on the journey. They know that feeling the joy of abundance is as important as having physical abundance, that beauty already exists in the world, if only we choose to see it. When I listen to these folks, it feels true. I can connect the dots and see that this law of attraction is nothing more than the negative thoughts spirals I know so well - in reverse!
It hardly seems fair that they both go by the same name, for they are nearly the antithesis of each other. One pushes, one allows; one demands, one seeks; one impatiently waits for the manifestation to appear, the other is already living the joy of what is. I want to explore the second.
In the coming weeks and months, I plan to develop ways for others to join me in these explorations. LOA for Skeptics, I'll call it. And like the paradox of all truth, by making the subtle distinction, we won't have to be skeptical at all.
Care to join me?
All content © Chris Trout
Some rights reserved
Comments on this entry
From what I’ve read about it, LOA and skepticism don’t mix, because the premise of skepticism is not to believe something until you have sufficient evidence, while the premise of LOA is that you won’t get the evidence until you have sufficient belief.
So LOA is unfalsifiable - if it didn’t work, it’s because you didn’t ‘believe’ enough. But because LOA promises tangible results, in a way it can be tested, just not objectively. So in a strange way then, the only way for a skeptic to be true to skepticism is to discard - then use blind faith, to see if LOA works.
OK you got me, I’m curious!